The War on Pleasure
By
Kira Swan

MOPA 409 – Visual Theory
Michael Thoma PhD.
October 25, 2018

Swan 2

It is a dire plight to try and make sense of the world. Although there are a great many
attempts at an explanation, there are a few main schools of thought which most other ideas fall
into. The first is the idea is that there is an explanation, the second being that there is not. Albert
Camus, coined an existentialist, is one of the leading members of the opinion that it is futile to
find meaning in an unintelligible world, however that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t enjoy the
struggle. Enjoying oneself is fairly difficult these days, made no easier by its persecution by
academia and religion.
Both Western religion and the academics discussion of pleasure originated in the same
place: ancient Greece. Plato, who has influenced all modern Western philosophers, was the first
to shun pleasure. Prior to Plato, at least in Rome and Greece, pleasure was glorified and revered,
especially the pleasure of the flesh. The anti sex school of thought began to spread in the 4th
century BC when Plato said there was a radical division between body and soul. (From Pleasure
to Sin, 16:01). The material world and the flesh was nothing compared to knowledge. Anything
associated with the flesh is worthless and inferior. “For Plato the only legitimate pleasures are
those based on the pursuit of transcendental truth, while for political modernism, pleasure can
only be legitimated on the basis of a historical and material truth,” (Rutsky, 5). This led to a
drastic change in academic teaching. In academia, personal pleasure would be cast aside for the
pursuit of knowledge, and those who studied or partook in pleasurable activities were seen as
less intelligent and inferior.
Another biproduct of Plato’s philosophy was its impact on Christianity. In Judaism and
the old Testament, sex and pleasure were not frowned upon because it led to procreation. Plato’s
philosophy in Roman culture influenced early Christianity and Catholicism and the narrative
changed. Saint Augustin preached that lust is equated to original sin. Lust drove Eve to take the
apple, and in doing so exposed herself and Adam to the torments of the physical world. Adam
and Eve became ashamed of their sexual organs and covered themselves. Therefore, all sexual
intercourse is intrinsically evil. The Apostle Jerome also believed that sex was defiling, and
people would have a greater reward in heaven if they practiced celibacy. The church offers
stability in an uncertain world, so with the promise of meaning these teachings are established as
the ultimate truth. “...There seems to have traditionally been...confusion in the case of pleasure,

Swan 3
as is shown by the normal attitude of Hedonism. Indeed, a hedonist is popularly a man who
pursues a life of physical sensations.” (Manser, 226). Manser also speaks to the connection and
differences between physical pleasure and all other activities that produce pleasure, commenting
on the fact that pleasure is not restricted to sexual pleasure, but it most commonly associated in a
way that would imply all pleasure is as sinful as bodily pleasure.
This denunciation of all pleasures was encouraged by the influence of the monastic life
which was introduced by Buddhist and Hindu monks. “Some Christians were so driven by their
belief in self-denial they decided to give up their worldly lives completely, living in constant
prayer, they denied their bodies food, comfort and sexual pleasure in order to attain spiritual
perfection,” (From Pleasure to Sin, 30:49). Buddhism preaches that to achieve happiness one
must relinquish all physical pleasures. Buddhism reiterates that a life solely controlled by desires
is a recipe for unhappiness, (Choudhury, 685). In a purely logical standpoint, it seems
contradictory that by denying oneself pleasure, one will achieve pleasure. Across many religious
platforms, the ideas the pleasure will lead to damnation or at least unhappiness in this life is a
popular theme. “According to the functionalist view, religion performs certain functions for
individuals and society. This function includes a social, existential or hermeneutical and
transcendent function,” (Cloete, 3). In this manner, the responsibility of finding meaning in one’s
own life is removed for the small price of relinquishing life’s pleasures.
However, academics are also not allowed to experience life’s pleasures. Philosophers like
Marx and Engles state that the social forces of capitalism transform life from being about living
to being about surviving. We do not see that we are ‘dehumanized’ and are therefore not
interested in rising up and changing the system. By focusing on the moment, and enjoying the
life one is given, we are subjugating ourselves to the system and stuck complacently in a living
hell. So, while we may think we are happy, we cannot be truly happy because we are not free.
Part of the capitalist agenda is the dominion over the working class, and according to Marx,
Horkheimer and Adorno, film is the tool of choice. In Horkheimer and Adorno’s The Culture
Industry: Enlightenment and Mass Deception they argue that the content of the film will extend
into the real world, and carry its philosophies with it, further influencing and controlling culture
and society (56). Because the ruling class controls the media and film, the philosophies in films
will not ultimately be beneficial to the general public. “The postindustrial shift of the U.S.
Economy to white-collar and service-sector jobs, and away from blue-collar jobs, has created a

Swan 4
large workforce/audience susceptible to this type of corporate critique,” (Clare 180). In the
current system, many people find their lives are not fulfilled, and in a materialist, culture
dominated by capitalism the wonderful fantasies of film worlds are a natural escape. Academic
criticize this escapism, because it is passive. Although people are experiencing pleasure from
film, pleasure is not a worthy pursuit, as knowledge is the only way to find meaning and
transcendence.
The solution to the problem of the controlling capitalist society would seem to be for
each individual person to rise up and make a change, but it is not as simple or easy as that. For
the majority of people, the system is not so oppressive that they would feel the need to enact a
radical change. It is important to note that there are theories on how we are only convinced that
we are not oppressed enough, even though we are. “The literature of the inside of the corporation
becomes merely a vehicle for capitals voice. Since capital cannot truly ‘have’ a voice, it compels
those who work for and within it to speak for it, seemingly as a ventriloquist does the dummy...it
is the dummy controlling the ventriloquist, only the ventriloquist is completely unaware of this,”
(Clare, 192). By continuously analyzing how the reality of the individual is controlled by society,
the individual is condemning themselves most assuredly to a lifetime of unhappiness and
confusion. In the meantime, the everyday worker must seek fulfilment. “Today's beleaguered
worker finds similar escape from economic hardship through film.” (Tay). Tay also points out
how many filmmakers use the medium of film to share political theories and ideas, so while it
may be escapist, it is also educational.
Adorno is adamantly against escapism in cinema, but not all film is classified as escapist.
Art film, avant-garde film, and realist film is often not included in the mainstream cinema
dialogue. “Film criticism[s]...academic legitimacy has always been used on the distinction
between serious pleasures and mere diversion (the repeated attempts to separate ‘high’ from
‘mass’ culture, art from ‘mere’ commodity),” (Rutsky, 4). Once, again, an attack on pleasure.
Serious pleasures include the pursuit of knowledge and meaning in the world. The ‘mere’
commodity pleasure would be the instant joy or emotion experienced in the watching of a film.
Psychologists conducted studies on the human brain in relation to pleasure, using wine as a test
subject. The human brain experienced more pleasure when drinking an expensive wine even
when both wines were in reality the same (DiSalvo). Because of social and cultural influences,
our brains react differently to things that we place greater value on, regardless of the actual

Swan 5
value. However, our pleasure centers respond to the things with the higher personal value, and
we enjoy it more. Similarly, in film, if we experience pleasure from a film, regardless of the
films value. That being said, if a film brings more pleasure to a group of people, could that film
be classified as better? What qualifies the value of a film is also a debate of high art and
commodity. While an art film may have a greater philosophical value and cultural commentary, a
romantic film may bring more people joy and in this way contribute to bettering the individual
experience.
Western culture is predominantly dictated through capitalism and materialism, meaning
that to the individual their perceptions of happiness may also be dictated by these things.
“Singular pursuits of material wealth and excessive materialism have been reported to be
incompatible with religious fulfillment” (Choudhury, 283). “Possessions are understood to fulfill
almost all human wants, ensure happiness, define self-worth, play a central role in a person’s
life, and symbolize the quality of life,” (Choudhury, 683). Pleasure through materialist pursuits
are also frowned upon by the great thinkers and academics. Once again, the quality and type of
pleasure we can and cannot experience is dictated by the institutions around us. This also leads
into the argument of psychology and how it factors in to what gives people pleasure, as that is
bound to differ from one person to the next. Filmmakers are responsible for the messages their
films deliver. In propagating educational and progressive messages audiences can enjoy the
experience of the film and not be plagued by the guilt of supposedly contributing to the
dehumanization of society through propaganda.
Koch, like Adorno, theorizes that film is mass art, and he is uneasy about the audience’s
tendencies to consume it without question. “Ambivalence is indeed the starting point of the
dialectical turn from shattering and fragmentation to bricolage and subversion—but
reconciliation is as incommensurable as is happiness.” (Koch, 83). That is to say that in our
journeys to find meaning in our own lives, we must cannot be so selfish as to negate our
responsibilities to the happiness of others and the betterment of the world.
If one is not going to find meaning through religion, or dedicate themselves to academia
and transcendence through knowledge, it is important to recognize the alternatives. Choosing to
take responsibility for one’s own life and accept that there may not be anything beyond this plane
of existence is a tremendous leap away from faith. Existentialism does not open the doors to a
life of pure pleasure, because enjoying it becomes a whole lot more difficult. A big part of

Swan 6
religion is the belief that there is something after death. Without this faith in the afterlife, the
issue of mortality arises. With the threat of death hanging over one’s shoulders, the impediment
to live life to its fullest is imposed Camus “advocates precisely what he takes Christianity to
abjure: living a life of the senses, intensely, here and now, in the present. This entails, first,
abandoning all hope for an afterlife, indeed rejecting thinking about it. ‘I do not want to believe
that death is the gateway to another life. For me it is a closed door’,” (Aronson). This is frowned
upon in part because of this statement’s rejection of god, but also in the idea that life could be
lived for the senses, for oneself. Living for oneself is not necessarily a notion of selfishness, but
of amor fati—to love your life, the richness of life, love the good and the bad, and live every
moment of it. “Camus theorized that we will never be able to find meaning in our lives, so we
can either commit suicide or hope. Some people turn to religion to give their lives meaning, and
the others ‘bending one’s energies to living for a great cause beyond oneself’,” (Aronson). It
won’t be explained, and it won’t be easy, but there is pleasure in the struggle and the journey.
“[Camus’] political thought was infused with a refusal to ignore the complexity of politics as
well as an insistence that death is not the inevitable outcome of rebellion.” (Eubanks, 294).
It would almost be easier to renounce pleasure and find meaning through religion then to
stomach the journey alone, but it seems ridiculous to deprive ourselves of everything life has to
offer just to serve a greater purpose. Between the religious denunciation of pleasure and the
academic discourse, “[Pleasures] are often figured as decadent—betrayals of truth, morally
corrupt, politically incorrect—or, at best, as escapist of trivial,” (Rutsky, 3). While religion does
not condone cinema specifically, Marxist philosophy definitely supports cinema as a model of
propaganda and control. However, “watching film is associated with leisure time whereto it is
assumed that people can escape to experience pleasure and be playful,” (Cloete, 2), and leisure is
a pleasure for which there is little room in religion. If there were not such a strong resistance to
the pursuit of pleasure, then it may be far easier to find the elusive meaning. Unfortunately, from
the thoughts of the ancients, we are forced to ignore our primal instincts and focus on ethereal
subject matter.
“...The idea that such weighty matters [happiness] do not deserve serious philosophical
scrutiny is simply obtuse.” (Haybron, 503). Haybron argues against the hedonistic theories of
happiness. “Hedonism errs in its attempt to reduce happiness, which is at least partly
dispositional, to purely episodic experiential states” (Haybron, 501). For all the psychology

Swan 7
regarding the human brain and happiness/pleasure, there is not a whole lot of academic inquiry
into its value to philosophy. As such an immense part of our day to day lives it seems irrational
to give it so little thought. Theories regarding pain are much more frequently discussed. The
refusal of the study of pleasure only adds to the notion that pleasure is not deserving of study, so
until there is a breakthrough regarding our social response to pleasure, it will remain unlooked at
and unimportant. The study of pleasure is incredibly complex, as there are many facets of
pleasure which are closely connected with philosophical theories, such as the idea of universal
truths and transcendental aesthetics. The former addressing the idea that being morally correct
and doing good is a source of pleasure, the latter being in relation to the human experience
beginning with sensations and going beyond what can be explained. Sensation is closely related
to pleasure, especially physical pleasure, the most condemned of all forms. It however goes
beyond touch, as we can experience pleasure through all five senses, the more senses
participating the greater the experience. The idea of universal truths breaches the gap between
selfish interests and the greater good. Pleasure is not always a self-indulgent negative thing.
Sometimes it can be the great incentive to push people to do things for others; communities, the
environment, you name it. Believing that more good can be achieved through guilt and fear is
irrational and outdated. Understanding and utilizing the great effects of human emotions is in the
best interest of all of those who experience them. The world is a daunting and confusing place,
and sometimes it is difficult to make sense of it all. Even if the answers are never found, each
person should be able to make the best of what they are given, and should not be deterred by the
corrupted teachings of ancient philosophers and the Christian apostles.

Swan 8

Works Cited
Aronson, Ronald. "Albert Camus." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford
University, 10 Apr. 2017. Web. 20 Oct. 2018.
Choudhury, Koushiki. “Materialism, Religion, and Implications for Marketing-An
Ethnographic Study of Nichiren Buddhism.” Psychology & Marketing, vol. 31, no. 9,
Sept. 2014, pp. 683–697. EBSCOhost.
Clare, Ralph. "Conclusion. Corporate Hegemony, Cubed." Fictions Inc. the Corporation in
Postmodern Fiction, Film, and Popular Culture. N.p.: Rutgers UP, 2014. 180-93.
Print.
Cloete, Anita L. “Film as Medium for Meaning Making: A Practical Theological
Reflection.” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies , Vol 73, Iss 4, Pp E1-E6
(2017), no. 4, 2017, p. e1. EBSCOhost.
DiSalvo, David. "How Your Brain Makes You Think Expensive Wine Tastes
Better." Psychology Today. Sussex Publishers, 8 Sept. 2017. Web. 22 Oct. 2018.
Eubanks, Cecil L., and Peter A. Petrakis. “Reconstructing the World: Albert Camus and the
Symbolization of Experience.” The Journal of Politics, vol. 61, no. 2, 1999, pp. 293–
312. JSTOR, JSTOR.
From Pleasure to Sin: Sex and the Church. Dir. Robin Dashwood. Perf. Diarmaid
MacCulloch. BBC Two. BBC, 1 May 2015. Web. 21 Oct. 2018.
Haybron, Daniel M. “Happiness and Pleasure.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research,
vol. 62, no. 3, 2001, pp. 501–528. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2653534.

Swan 9

Horkheimer, Max, and Theodore W. Adorno. “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass
Deception.” Gunzen Schmid Noerr (ed). Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical
Fragments (1944): pp. 94-136. Print.
Koch, Gertrud, and Daniel Hendrickson. “Uneasy Pleasing: Film as Mass Art.” New German
Critique, no. 108, 2009, pp. 73–83. JSTOR, JSTOR.
Manser, A. R. “Pleasure.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, vol. 61, 1960, pp. 223–
238. JSTOR, JSTOR.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engles. “The Ruling Class and the Ruling Ideas.” Karl Marx,
Friedrich Engles: Collected Works, vol. 5. Pp 59-62. (1976). Print.
Rutsky, R. L., and Justin Wyatt. “Serious Pleasures: Cinematic Pleasure and the Notion of
Fun.” Cinema Journal, vol. 30, no. 1, 1990, pp. 3–19. JSTOR, JSTOR.
Tay, Sharon Lin. “Reflective Escapism.” Afterimage, vol. 37, no. 4, Jan. 2010, pp. 5–
6. EBSCOhost.